Examination of Witnesses(Questions 506-519)
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP, MR
DANIEL INSTONE
AND MR
STEPHEN REEVES
WEDNESDAY 11 DECEMBER 2002
Chairman
506. Minister, welcome to the Committee. We
have, for the record, Elliot Morley, who is Parliamentary Under
Secretary of the Commons for Fisheries, Water and Nature Protection.
I am never quite sure if that is your permanent title or whether
your title keeps changing somewhat in light of the function you
are performing at any particular moment. Anyhow, for the purposes
of this inquiry, that is what it is. Then we have Mr Daniel Instone,
Head of Water Quality Division and Mr Stephen Reeves from the
Water Quality Branch. One of the things we have discovered in
this inquiry is that it is very all-embracing, and yet there is
a large number of people who one would have thought would have
been pretty well seized of it and beginning to wonder and worry
about the implications of it who do not appear to know the Water
Framework Directive even exists. The Local Government Association
apparently have been wholly baffled by the concept of a Water
Framework Directive. Very little evidence has come from people
involved in diffuse pollution from urban sources as opposed to
agricultural sources. How confident are you that everybody who
ought to know that this is a massive and important piece of legislation
that is now rolling inexorably forward actually has the faintest
idea of its existence?
(Mr Morley) I accept that this is a very
complex Directive. The idea of it is, of course, to bring together
the various directives that exist and to do it in a much more
co-ordinated and joined-up way. I think that is a worthy objective.
In terms of what you are saying, we have made a big effort through
DEFRA and also the environment agencies to embrace and draw in
people who have an interest in this Framework Directive. One of
the points which might relate to the fact that some people say
they are not quite clear about parts of it is that it is work
in progress; it is developing, and of course, it will take place
over a number of years. On the diffuse pollution, for example,
we are just in the process now of going out to consultation on
issues like that, but we have been engaged in seminars and conferences,
we have our stakeholder groupand the LGA is involved in
thatso people really ought to be aware that this Directive
is in process, although it is fair to say, of course, that it
is still developing.
507. If we try and summarise the evidence we
have received, nobody has said that this is a thoroughly bad idea.
There have been two strains of thought which have come to us.
One is to say in that last-minute conciliation process between
Parliament and Council, quite a lot of stuff was put into the
Directive which makes it quite difficult to live withcertain
definitions which do not seem to make sense in either scientific
or economic termsand secondly, there are still an awful
lot of unknowns in the Directive. Do you feel that we really do
have the certainty of the necessary landmarks, or do you feel
there are still areas on which you need clarification from Brussels
as to quite what is meant by certain terms?
(Mr Morley) I think we are relatively clear on the
landmarks, if I can use that expression. It is true that there
is a great deal more work to be done on certainties, and costs,
for example, is one of those areas where there is a need to clarify
the situation. But in terms of the route that the framework is
taking and the key parts of it, I think they are fairly clear
in relation to the definitions and how they are being developed.
508. We will come to some of the questions in
the course of the discussion. There is, of course, a timetable
attached to this Directive, and clearly some of the people who
gave evidence would quite like the Government to be a bit ahead
of the game, other people were saying you have the possibility
in certain circumstances to defer some of the implementation but
the general feeling is that the Government's intention is to defer
on the schedule neither before nor later than the schedule. Can
you confirm that present intentions are to do it on the date,
only the date and nothing but the date?
(Mr Morley) Yes, we are working to the schedule as
has been laid out in the Directive, and also in terms of the web
programmes that we have made public.
Diana Organ
509. The Chairman has already said this is complex,
difficult, there are lots of unknowns, suggestions that the Government
is not terribly prepared because a pilot river basin has not yet
been chosen, we are not quite sure of the outcome. Why did the
Government sign up to it? What are the benefits of doing this?
Why are we going to do it?
(Mr Morley) If I can deal with the first point first,
I think there is a range of benefits with this in the sense that
it is to everyone's benefit to have water of good ecological quality,
good chemical quality, good standards. You are dealing with issues
of drinking water, you are dealing with issues of water courses,
inland waters, estuaries, river waters. These are desirable objectives
for any government to pursue. As I said in my opening remarks,
I also think that it is desirable, given the range of directives
that there are in placedrinking water directives, bathing
water directivesto bring them together within one framework
it is also desirable in terms of having effective implementation
and also the way that people understand them and how they operate.
I might just say on the river basin pilot studies, I can say today,
Chairman, that the Environment Agency are going to go ahead with
the Ribble basin catchment study, and that will be in its broadest
sense. We also know that there are groups in the Mersey basin
who are very keen to be involved in the development of such pilots,
and the Agency intends to embrace those as well. I thought you
might like to know that.
Chairman: Mr Jack is at the bottom end of the
Ribble and I am at the top end of the Ribble, so our joy is uncontained!
Diana Organ
510. If you say there are benefits from the
quality of water and the quality of the environment, does that
mean that the public does not have good quality drinking water
and water bodies in the UK are pretty filthy and therefore there
are problems with their bio-diversity and ecology?
(Mr Morley) Absolutely not. In fact, I am very glad
to say that the standard of our rivers has consistently increased
in recent years in terms of quality standard, as indeed has the
quality of drinking water in terms of its safety standards. We
have made enormous progress in this country in relation to improving
water quality in its broadest sense, but I think that there is
a very sound argument for having a Framework Directive of this
kind because of the complexity and importance of the whole issue
of water policy. We did lay that out, of course, in our strategy,
Directing the Flow, which I know that you have seen, and
that makes very clear the priorities of future water policy, how
we are trying to bring those together, and how the government
strategy will fit within the framework approach as well. I think
there is a great deal of logic in this approach, though I do not
dispute there is also a great deal of work to be done in terms
of dealing with some of the issues and clarifying some of the
points and pulling together the different strands of it.
511. Having tried to tease from you why the
Government has chosen to sign up to this and the benefits that
we might have as a result of it, how different are we going to
be by 2012 from how we are now? What are the real reasons why
Government has gone down this track?
(Mr Morley) Again, there is a number of reasons, but
I particularly like the public participation in the basin approaches.
I think that is very important and desirable. I also think there
are some quite complex issues that we need to address. Diffuse
pollution is one of them. Part of that is the fact that there
is still a lot of work to be done. For example, a third of our
rivers are still below good quality, even despite the fact that
we have made such advances in recent years. So I would not want
to be complacent about the work that we have to do and the fact
that there are still a lot of potential areas of pollution, there
are still a lot of areas we need to control, there are issues
of water resource management and issues of new building and issues
of run-off from roads, from agriculture, and there are issues
about the many different groups who have an interest in high water
quality: recreational groups, environmental groups, and the water
companies, of course. All these are embraced within the framework
and I think that brings a range of benefits.
Mrs Shephard
512. You have rightly described the implications
of the Directive as increasing complexity. What has interested
all of us on the Committee as we have worked our way through the
groups involved is the question of accountability. This does not
seem to be any clearer as we proceed through our questioning.
For example, what legal status will river basin management plans
have in relation to land use planning? Who will be accountable
for those? How will that accountability cross-reference to elected
local authority members who are responsible for land use planning?
How will it work?
(Mr Morley) The Directive will certainly have a legal
basis, and it will also fit in with land use planning.
513. No. It cannot fit in if it overrides it.
(Mr Morley) It does not exactly override it. It will
fit in in the sense that the Framework Directive will have to
be included in planning policy guidance which will be issued by
the ODPM, both in terms of the PPG approach and also in the regional
guidance which is given to local authorities which of course influences
their structure plans. It has to be taken account of in relation
to land use planning. In that sense, it will be integrated.
514. Can I just clarify my question yet again?
If there should be a clash between the legal status of a river
basin management plan and a decision of a planning committee,
who wins?
(Mr Morley) The planning committee will have to take
into account the legal status of the framework because in relation
to consents, run-offs, those kinds of developments, there will
have to be applications for consents, and any kind of issue which
affects wateras it is now; there is not a huge difference
in this. They will have to be part of any planning process and
they will have to go through that part of the process in relation
to ensuring that the planning application does meet the requirements
of the Directive.
Chairman
515. Does that mean the Government would exercise
its powers of call-in in order to ensure conformity?
(Mr Morley) My assumption on that would be that, just
like any planning application now, it does have to go through
the process, and part of the process will be complying with aspects
of the Water Framework Directive. If it is a major planning application,
or if there were dispute that it did not meet aspects of the regulations,
which it would be expected to in the normal course of its process,
then yes, it could be called in. That would be my understanding.
Mrs Shephard
516. If there were therefore to be an appeal
on the part of those making a planning application, to which body
would they appeal?
(Mr Morley) The normal appeal process would be through
the existing structures of the ODPM. There would be no change
on that.
517. What you are really saying then is that
the accountability rests where it is.
(Mr Morley) The structures in relation to planning
are unchanged in terms of the chain of accountability, but what
I want to emphasise is that there are aspects of the Directive
which, if there is an impact on any kind of land use planning,
particularly discharge consents, run-off, perhaps water abstraction,
will have to be taken into account, as indeed they are now; they
do have to comply with the procedures for that.
518. Can I ask you how you see the structure?
You must have in your mind's eye a picture of the structurea
flow chart, if you likethat will, first of all, be designed
to avoid duplication of plans involving water? Perhaps you could
tell us how many bodies you think will then be involved, for example,
and where you have to go for which permissions. Then I would like
you to tell us about the flow chart for co-ordinating in government
departments.
(Mr Morley) On the first one, the lead agency for
this Directive will be the Environment Agency. That will be very
clear to all concerned. The Environment Agency, of course, already
has its procedures in relation to consultation and its interface
with the public and the way that it operates. I do not see any
problems in terms of confusion or duplication. The Environment
Agency also has structures such as its regional advisory groups,
which may have to be looked at in the context of river basin management,
for example, and whether there can be a strengthening in relation
to involvement and consultation. That is part of the process that
we are going through in the consultation that we are having on
the Directive. There will also have to be co-ordination between
government departments. We have set up a group which is co-ordinating
us at the present time in relation to the implementation. Those
procedures are in place.
519. The Environment Agency is not democratically
accountable, is it? Who is accountable for it?
(Mr Morley) The Environment Agency is democratically
accountable through parliament, through DEFRA. The Environment
Agency is part of the DEFRA family, and it is an arm of government,
and therefore is democratically accountable through parliament
in the same way that any function of government is.
|